My apologies for not updating the forum, I received no reply from that one group, and have since forgotten about them. I will try to engage another group, but I'm not sure if picking a random self-proclaimed anything- be they feminist or otherwise, is worth the trouble. One can be an ardent believer or follower of any given set of beliefs and still be unable to communicate effectively.

But without the effort there would be no show, and should anyone be drummed up, I cannot vouch for random contacts.

Bryan McGilly wrote:What about Rich Zubaty? Or Esther Vilar? I think they would make for some interesting discussions.

Vilar might be interesting, if she even still holds such views. Zubaty seems too low brow for me to be interested. He's more a mundane men's rights sort of character. I think we can do better. Someone such as Camille Paglia is more what we're looking at. As for Dave Sim, yes he would be interesting but getting to him will be difficult as he's not actually online and can't be emailed. We'll see what happens on that front.

As for a panel of experts speaking about the intellectual inferiority of women, I'm not sure, even with Skype's technical weaknesses, where we'd get such people, though Nat's suggestion is probably as good as any. I know a few guys down my local who'd think they qualified.

Bryan McGilly wrote:I will try to engage another group, but I'm not sure if picking a random self-proclaimed anything- be they feminist or otherwise, is worth the trouble. One can be an ardent believer or follower of any given set of beliefs and still be unable to communicate effectively.

That can be solved by giving them a call on Skype before doing any shows, to give 'em a test drive.

As for the expert panellists, I was thinking of what was done in "Beyond Belief" - but purely audio. Namely, a small forum of intelligent people challenging the belief that women are intellectual equals to men, rather than the belief that it is unnecessary to criticise religious beliefs. It would be possible, but maybe tricky, to overcome Skype's limitations by hanging up on one person, and talking to another for a decent period of time, before recalling the first one. That would be a panel effect.

There could be brain experts like Susan Greenfield; expert feminists like Elizabeth Grosz; expert misogynists like Sue Hindmarsh, Dave Sims, or a David Stove supporter. That would be interesting.

The problem of course, is that there are so few truly expert misogynists, while there are plenty of brain experts and feminists.

A true misogynist has no hate, no desire to denigrate anyone, nor any love for anyone. That is how they can see levels of consciousness without disgust or excitement. That is what the intellectual inferiority of women is all about: consciousness.

But I suppose anyone who understands this intellectually, while not being able to live up to it 100%, is enough of a misogynist to create a coherent argument.

So it comes down to courage.

Which of our list of misogynists has the most courage to speak about what they understand, but are struggling to actually embody?

Kelly Jones wrote:A true misogynist has no hate, no desire to denigrate anyone, nor any love for anyone. That is how they can see levels of consciousness without disgust or excitement. That is what the intellectual inferiority of women is all about: consciousness.

But I suppose anyone who understands this intellectually, while not being able to live up to it 100%, is enough of a misogynist to create a coherent argument.

So it comes down to courage. Which of our list of misogynists has the most courage to speak about what they understand, but are struggling to actually embody?

Men that hate women are mostly just shifting the blame. They are too weak to hate themselves for their emotional vulnerability to women, so they blame women as a diversion.

We've decided to create a forum specifically for the discussion of the podcasts, in part to help prevent them becoming a mish-mash like this thread has become. I'm going to leave this one here and start afresh with the first two shows. Any general comments regarding the Reasoning Show can go here.

Automatic transcription software means the software integrates a speech-recognition component. So the typing is all done for you. But an extremely powerful programme is needed to deal with accents, jargon, running-together words, abbreviated sentences, and interruptions.

Kelly, did they relieve you from transcribing? I suggested that they should, because you created a very biased transcription for my show. You subtly altered the dialogue against me and in Kevin's favor. You also had me using all kinds of exclamation points, which I dislike and would never use. It made me come off as overly emphatic, further distorting the actual tone of the discussion. I pointed all of this out to Dan and he agreed and apologized. Transcriptions should not be biased in favor of any party, it's very bad form.

Unidian wrote:Kelly, did they relieve you from transcribing? I suggested that they should, because you created a very biased transcription for my show. You subtly altered the dialogue against me and in Kevin's favor. You also had me using all kinds of exclamation points, which I dislike and would never use. It made me come off as overly emphatic, further distorting the actual tone of the discussion. I pointed all of this out to Dan and he agreed and apologized. Transcriptions should not be biased in favor of any party, it's very bad form.

Nat/Dan;

I find all the pod-casts quite adequate already, straight from the horseâ€™s mouth so to speak, unless some editing has been done. Wouldnâ€™t one of the main reasons of a pod-cast mean no distortions through exaggerated punctuations when written? Just as spoken words when heard give quite a good indication or â€œpunctuationsâ€, facial expressions complete them. I think only a video-cast could do full justice to discussions. May be a videoconference perhaps. Is there no such software that could be shared by the participants?

To be honest, the only way I know of to potentially help with dialup users streaming the podcasts is to offer a version at a much lower bitrate (meaning much lower sound quality). I'll experiment with that a little and see if I think it's viable. Maybe someone with more technical knowhow than me can offer another option.

Unidian wrote:IMO, David and Dan could have countered some of this more effectively by focusing more specifically on A=A, and how the logical idea expressed by it holds true regardless of what terms and definitions we plug into it. They touched on it, but they didn't get to the core of it. It wouldn't have refuted all of Victor's objections, but it would have cut to the core of what was an otherwise rather peripheral and academic portion of the discussion, where an impasse seemed to have been reached. I think that at minimum, a greater focus on A=A would have steered that portion of the conversation back to productive ground, and I think Dan and David largely missed the opportunity to do this.

I don't think your suggestion will have any effect. For it is all a matter of context.

If you state that A=A is true, it is not given which degrees of freedom are included in this statement. It may as well be that along the n-th dimension in the Zeta Universe holds that A(x) isnotequalto A(x +1) while in all other possible dimensions for all posible values of x and y holds A(x) = A(y).

If you on the other hand by A=A mean that by definition A always is equal to A, your statement is an identity statement which is trivial or self-referring. This is exactly Victor's argument when he states that only trivial statements are logically absolute. But the logical correctness of trivial statements is in no way evidence for the fact that non-trivial statements can ever be called absolute, as is Dan's claim.

I've always found the invisible monologuist suspicious, his monotonous tone, and otherworldly images (especially of the women - like Adi Da) somewhat revolting. It reminds me of Steinerites and old loopy men in theosophical societies. Sure enough, the list of similar videos included one on Blavatsky. I think that's why I preferred Architects and Builders of Self Deceit - there's more personality in both images and voice, showing a sordid background and a life with "prostitutes and tax collectors".

But definitely some thought-stimulating stuff in there. Focussing on humanity's despair, and relating it to the insecurity of womanliness, was a good approach, but showing so many pictures of quite lovely women has perhaps undermined it. The quiet suffering of a woman is something most people find noble.

Maybe a link to a discussion site, to help correct any misapprehensions and fend off female acolytism?

Why do people like Charles Bukowski, Andy Kaufman, Christopher Hitchens, Adam Carolla, Bob Dylan, Robert Crumb, Ricky Gervais, et al, clear the air? Because they are who they are while they point out falseness. They don't turn Truth into a disembodied abstraction: they manifest Truth directly in themselves. They remain exactly the ugly, patchy, crude existences they are. They say, "Come and look at me! Be like me! I am Truth!"

Yes, I know none of them are wise men. Yet how much closer they are, than someone who talks about Truth, but who thinks of something, and pretends to be that something.